Fahrenheit 9/11

Parking Lot

RamseyFan: A 2003 Stanford/UCLA/ University of Chicago study found that Fox News is the most centrist news organization.

As for Moore, I won't watch his movie where I have to pay money in order to obtain viewing rights. Part of that money would end up in his pockets, and I don't want that to happen. So, I'll probably wait until my school's library has it on file, and then watch it.

__________________ "It's not about what you've done, but what's been done for you."

Great quote from that article:
"Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."

Very nice Slate piece. That guy does not like Moore (and personally, it seems), but any Moore supporter must take these sorts of factual criticisms seriously. Otherwise, what's the point?

Still, I found it interesting that he made no mention of the mother from Flint whose son dies in Iraq. Many commentators have cited this as the real power of the film, and the part most likely to stick with folks, even those who disregard the conspiracy stuff. (I haven't seen it, so I only speak about it from a distance.)

As for FOX being "centrist," I wonder if someone could please point out a conservative news source for comparison. Rupert Murdoch's papers throughout the world have very conservative editorial pages (see, eg, The New York Post); further, as noted, the commentators on Fox News are considerably more conservative in their outlook than other news channels in this country. While their presentation of news updates, etc., may well be "centrist," their spin of the facts in discussion (yes, even in the "no spin zone") is decidedly to the right. I have no problem with the claim that most news sources tend to be liberal. (I think it's because people going into journalism tend to look up to the Woodward and Bernstein, investigative hero model, rather than because of some liberal left conspiriacy. I am skeptical of conspiracies in general.) Still, why not just admit that FOX is on the right, and take that as a guide to interpreting their reporst and comments?

I advise everyone to cross check their news as often as possible. It's truly enlightening to see the same story reported from a number of different sources. That's as easy as fliping between the major news sources on TV, or clicking on the google news tab, and checking the story in a number of online sources. Check it out, and try clicking on the "and 543 related", etc., links below the lead stories. It hooks with everything from the ravings of al Jazeera to the moderate centrism of Murdoch's FOX.

uhh... especially in the no spin zone, i don't think anyone is going to argue that O'reilly clearly leans to the right . The slate article also does seem to spend a lot more time targetting moore than F911 specifically, but that may just be to prove a pattern (or he may just really really hate the guy)...

I get the washington post and the washington times (owned by the very right wing Mr. Moon i believe), and it is interesting to see how they headline some of the same stories.

When you're comparing Fox to NBC, CNN, CBS, etc, of course Fox is going to seem to more aligned to the right, but by saying that Fox leans heavily to the right (off center) you're not taking into consideration where those other news organizations are in relation to the center. You're looking at a part of the picture and not the whole picture by doing that.

__________________ "It's not about what you've done, but what's been done for you."

Heh, I love how O'Reilly always calls himself independant, and talks about how he doesn't support either party. I don't know if I've ever heard him say a liberal thing during his radio program. I normally listen to it 2-3 times a week (I hate him, but a guy at work listens to it and I enjoy hearing the news from another angle.)

yeah, he goes into hard ass zealot pretty fast sometimes, just like coultier or moore, sometimes its interesting to hear, but they all tend to totally ignore any arguement against their view (sometimes they downplay it, usually they don't even bother mentioning it though). That's what I don't like, only telling one side of an arguement, and then wondering how anyone could disagree since obviously there's no down sides or other views that could possibly be right .

Sorry to jump into the discussion so late. Currently out in Puerto Rico attending the First Annual Warpath Moderators Caribbean Convention. Wouldn't you know it I'm the only moderator out here. Thought I'd take a break from the beach to see what topics are being intelligently debated here.

This is a good one. Most of what I think has already been said by That Guy. Don't know who That Guy is but he's fast becoming one of my favorites. I don't care much for the way that Moore puts facts out there. The Redskins lost Champ Bailey,that's a fact. But if all you say is that and don't say they gained Clinton Portis then you're not really telling the whole story. That's how Moore operates. And then he tries to shock you with things that really are pretty common knowledge. We all know that while trying to prevent the spread of communism the United States helped certain Afghan guerrillas, one of whom it turned out was the Bin Laden we know today. And yes, we all know the Carlyle Group has ties to the Bush family and to the Bin Laden family. I have season tickets to the Wizards, the money I spend on the team helps pay Juan Dixon's salary. If Dixon goes out and runs over someone with his new Benz am I somehow responsible? It's a bit of a stretch with my analogy but I think you get my drift.

Anyway, if I were to make some suggestions here it would be to read "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix or "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward. And if you don't like to read go see the movie "Control Room" As for the news, listen to NPR. Fox News may be considered "centrist" by some, but I think it's totally classless how they took daily bombings in Iraq and turned them into musical montages.

__________________You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

One thing Moore does do that can't be debated are the interviews. The mother from Flint and the men picking up the dead after Afghan bombings really struck me. Some parts of it I laughed, other parts really made you take a step back, most people are scared to show the type of death and destruction that a war can cause.

I also loved when Moore went around asking Congressmen to sign their children up for the armed forces. That was absolutely hilarious.

I actually was suprised. I didn't see near the amount of personal attacks on Bush as I expected, and he ripped on the Democrats some, as usual. I thought the movie was excellent, and definitely worth a look no matter your political alignment. We took a republican with us and he didn't think it was too bad.

I also loved when Moore went around asking Congressmen to sign their children up for the armed forces. That was absolutely hilarious.

thats a load of bs though. what type of parent from any part of the wealth spectrum would actually ask or tell their child to join the military? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought we got a choice of what we wish to do with our lives in this country. Those serving in the military of our country are there of their own free will with the knowledge that they may one day be in a position when their life is in danger. I don't understand how some join the military, but when it comes to actually serving their country in a situation they think puts them in a precarious position, they take up the call that they wish to be non-combatants or that their religious beliefs forbid them from doing their job. maybe I'm the only one who see's it this way.